Posted on 02/10/2006 11:07:35 AM PST by Rutles4Ever
http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp
Third Intifada imminent - Friday, February 10, 2006 @ 1:24:49 AM
Spoke several excellent sources re Israel and Palestinians, and all agree that a third intifada is imminent, though one did call it a war, not an intifada. Hamas will not relent on its position that it is committed to a violent defeat of Israel. The intifada will be run by Al Aqsa from the West Bank, especially the Balata refugee camp, and by Islamic Jihad from the West Bank and Gaza. The third intifada will include suicide belts as well as the first ever rocket attacks from the West Bank into Israel.
Israel's response to the intifada is not predictable. Olmert is campaigning to the left to win as many peace-now seats as possible. Netanyahu will stay hard right and urge war and effective annexation of the territories.
Al Aqsa and Islamic Jihad gain with the new intifada by establishing credibility as the street fighters, while Hamas gains by assuming the role of diplomat to the Europeans: the Putin gesture to Hamas is the beginning of the reinvention of a terror gang into a freedom collective.
The profound loser is the United States, which is backing a false witness (Abbas) and an appeaser (Olmert) and a failed formula (the Road Map) and betraying allies (the Quartet). Grim weeks ahead, then it will get worse.
eventually an American President will be elected which will deal the terrorists once and for all, even those in Israel.
"Right and what happens when none of this takes place? Beware of people who claim to have "Secret sources" who magically process crystal balls that foretell the future."
Especially guys like this one, who can't even type three paragraphs without errors in spelling and grammar.
- ThreeTracks
I dunno. Next time, I hope he gives out the lotto numbers...
True. I don't think it's much of a stretch to assume that the Palestinians will move up their rocket launchers as far as Israel wants to withdraw.
Just my opinion, but the Road Map leads to a dead end because it makes the fatal mistake of assuming the counterpart wants peace.
Where? He left out the word, 'to' in the first sentence, but other than that, I couldn't find spelling or grammar errors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.